Indian Home Rule by M K Gandhi

41 Pages·2021·0.33 MB·English

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Indian Home Rule, by M. K. Gandhi

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Indian Home Rule

Author: M. K. Gandhi

Release Date: August 9, 2012 [EBook #40461]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INDIAN HOME RULE ***

Produced by sp1nd, Cathy Maxam, ewkent, raviarya and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)

title page

INDIAN HOME RULE

BY

M. K. GANDHI

FIFTH EDITION

AS. 6

GANESH & Co., MADRAS

Books by C. F. Andrews

The Claim for Independence

Within or without the British Empire

Price As. 8.

Non-Co-operation

The Whys and Wherefores

Price As. 8.

Indians in South Africa

Helots within the British Empire

Price As. 8.

The Drink and Opium Evil

Miss La Molte says: "A nation that can subjugate 300,000,000 helpless Indian people, and then

turn them into drug addicts, for the sake of revenue, is a nation, which commits a cold-
blooded atrocity unparalleled by any atrocity committed in the rage and heat of war."

Price As. 4.

How India can be Free

"India has no need to take the sword in order to be free: She has a much more powerful weapon

ready to her hand. If once her people unitedly decide to be free they can be free."

Price As. 4.

Indian Independence:

The immediate need

To be in subjection to a band of foreign rulers, if Seeley's historical maxim is true, cannot but

lead to national deterioration. This is why the need for independence is so immediate. This
is why it cannot be postponed. The verdict of the most sober English Historians is this, that
India, without a single hand being lifted to strike a single blow, can determine her own
destiny. The sheer weight of numbers,—three hundred and twenty millions against a few
thousands,—is so great, that if these numbers could once speak with one mind, their will
must be carried out.

Price As. 8.

GANESH & Co., Publishers, Madras.

INDIAN HOME RULE

BY

M. K. GANDHI

Reprinted with a new foreword by the author

FIFTH EDITION

GANESH & Co., MADRAS

1922

MADRAS:

THE MODERN PRINTING WORKS, MOUNT ROAD.

NOTE

The doctrine of violence is more widely believed in than is generally realised. The votaries of violence

can be divided into two classes. Some, a small and dwindling class, believe in it and are prepared to act
according to their faith. Others, a very large class always, and now, after bitter experiences of the failure
of constitutional agitation, larger than ever, believe in violence, but that belief does not lead them to
action. It disables them from work on any basis other than force. The belief in violence serves to
dissuade them from all other kinds of work or sacrifice. In both cases the evil is great.

There can be no reconstruction or hope for this land of ours, unless we eradicate the worship of force

in all its forms, and establish work on a basis other than violence. A refutation of the doctrine of violence
is, in the present situation of the affairs of our country, more necessary than ever.

To this end, nothing better can be conceived than the publication and wide distribution of Mr.

Gandhi's famous book.

It was extremely patriotic of Messrs. Ganesh and Company to have readily agreed to undertake the

work when they were approached with the request.

}

Satyagrah Sabha,

Madras,
C. Rajagopalachar.

6-6-19.

FOREWORD

I have re-read this booklet more than once. The value at the present moment lies in re-printing it as it

is. But if I had to revise it, there is only one word I would alter in accordance with a promise made to an
English friend. She took exception to my use of the word 'prostitute' in speaking of the Parliament. Her
fine taste recoiled from the indelicacy of the expression. I remind the reader that the booklet purports to
be a free translation of the original which is in Gujarati.

After years of endeavour to put into practice the views expressed in the following pages, I feel that the

way shown therein is the only true way to Swaraj. Satyagrah—the law of love is the Law of life.
Departure from it leads to disintegration. A firm adherence to it leads to regeneration.

}

BOMBAY,

28th May, 1919.
M. K. GANDHI.

HIND SWARAJ

OR

THE INDIAN HOME RULE

Reply to Critics

It is certainly my good fortune that this booklet of mine is receiving wide attention. The original is in

Gujarati. It had a chequered career. It was first published in the columns of the 'Indian Opinion' of South
Africa. It was written in 1908 during my return voyage from London to South Africa in answer to the
Indian school of violence, and its prototype in South Africa. I came in contact with every known Indian
anarchist in London. Their bravery impressed me, but I feel that their zeal was misguided. I felt that
violence was no remedy for India's ills, and that her civilization required the use of a different and higher
weapon for self-protection. The Satyagrah of South Africa was still an infant hardly two years old. But
it had developed sufficiently to permit me to write of it with some degree of confidence. It was so much
appreciated that it was published as a booklet. It attracted some attention in India. The Bombay
Government prohibited its circulation. I replied by publishing its translation. I thought that it was due to
my English friends that they should know its contents. In my opinion it is a book which can be put into
the hands of a child. It teaches the gospel of love in the place of that of hate. It replaces violence with
self-sacrifice. It pits soul force against brute force. It has gone through several editions and I commend it
to those who would care to read it. I withdraw nothing except one word of it, and that in deference to a
lady friend. I have given the reason for the alteration in the preface to the Indian edition.

The booklet is a severe condemnation of 'modern civilization.' It was written in 1908. My conviction is

deeper to-day than ever. I feel that if India would discard 'modern civilization' she can only gain by doing
so.

But I would warn the reader against thinking that I am to-day aiming at the Swaraj described therein. I

know that India is not ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to say so. But such is my conviction. I am
individually working for the self-rule pictured therein. But to-day my corporate activity is undoubtedly
devoted to the attainment of Parliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the wishes of the people of India.
I am not aiming at destroying railways or hospitals, though I would certainly welcome their natural
destruction. Neither railways nor hospitals are a test of a high and pure civilization. At best they are a
necessary evil. Neither adds one inch to the moral stature of a nation. Nor am I aiming at a permanent
destruction of law courts, much as I regard it as a 'consummation devoutly to be wished for.' Still less am
I trying to destroy all machinery and mills. It requires a higher simplicity and renunciation than the people
are to-day prepared for.

The only part of the programme which is now being carried out in its entirety is that of non-violence.

But I regret to have to confess that even that is not being carried out in the spirit of the book. If it were,
India would establish Swaraj in a day. If India adopted the doctrine of love as an active part of her
religion and introduced it in her politics, Swaraj would descend upon India from heaven. But I am
painfully aware that that event is far off as yet.

I offer these comments because I observe that much is being quoted from the booklet to discredit the

present movement. I have even seen writings suggesting that I am playing a deep game, that I am using
the present turmoil to foist my fads on India, and am making religious experiments at India's expense. I
can only answer that Satyagrah is made of sterner stuff. There is nothing reserved and nothing secret in
it. A portion of the whole theory of life described in 'Hind Swaraj' is undoubtedly being carried into
practice. There is no danger attendant upon the whole of it being practised. But it is not right to scare
away people by reproducing from my writings passages that are irrelevant to the issue before the
country.

M. K. GANDHI,

Young India, 26th January, 1921.

CONTENTS

Chap.
Page

I
The Congress and Its Officials
11

[Pg 6]

[Pg 7]

[Pg 8]

II
The Partition of Bengal
18

III
The Discontent and Unrest
21

IV
What is Swaraj?
22

V
The Condition of England
26

VI
Civilization
30

VII
Why was India Lost?
35

VIII
The condition of India
39

IX
Do. Railways
43

X
Do. Hindus and Mahomedans
47

XI
Do. Lawyers
55

XII
Do. Doctors
60

XIII
What is True Civilization?
63

XIV
How can India become Free?
67

XV
Italy and India
71

XVI
Brute Force
75

XVII
Passive Resistance
84

XVIII
Education
97

XIX
Machinery
105

XX
Conclusion
110

Appendices
123

INDIAN HOME RULE

CHAPTER I

The Congress and Its Officials

Reader: Just at present there is a Home Rule wave passing over India. All our countrymen appear to

be pining for National Independence. A similar spirit pervades them even in South Africa. Indians seem
to be eager after acquiring rights. Will you explain your views in this matter?

Editor: You have well put the question, but the answer is not easy. One of the objects of a newspaper

is to understand the popular feeling and to give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people
certain desirable sentiments; and the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects. The exercise of all
these three functions is involved in answering your question. To a certain extent the people's will has to
be expressed; certain sentiments will need to be fostered, and defects will have to be brought to light.
But, as you have asked the question, it is my duty to answer it.

Reader: Do you then consider that a desire for Home Rule has been created among us?
Editor: That desire gave rise to the National Congress. The choice of the word "National" implies it.
Reader: That, surely, is not the case. Young India seems to ignore the Congress. It is considered to

be an instrument for perpetuating British Rule.

Editor: That opinion is not justified. Had not the Grand Old Man of India prepared the soil, our young

men could not have even spoken about Home Rule. How can we forget what Mr. Hume has written,
how he has lashed us into action, and with what effort he has awakened us, in order to achieve the
objects of the Congress? Sir William Wedderburn has given his body, mind and money to the same
cause. His writings are worthy of perusal to this day. Professor Gokhale, in order to prepare the Nation,
embraced poverty and gave twenty years of his life. Even now, he is living in poverty. The late Justice
Buddrudin Tyebji was also one of those who, through the Congress, sowed the seed of Home Rule.
Similarly in Bengal, Madras, the Punjab and other places, there have been lovers of India and members

[Pg 12]

of the Congress, both Indian and English.

Reader: Stay, stay, you are going too far, you are straying away from my question. I have asked you

about Home or Self-Rule; you are discussing foreign rule. I do not desire to hear English names, and you
are giving me such names. In these circumstances, I do not think we can ever meet. I shall be pleased if
you will confine yourself to Home Rule. All other wise talk will not satisfy me.

Editor: You are impatient. I cannot afford to be likewise. If you will bear with me for a while, I think

you will find that you will obtain what you want. Remember the old proverb that the tree does not grow
in one day. The fact that you have checked me, and that you do not want to hear about the well-wishers
of India, shows that, for you at any rate, Home Rule is yet far away. If we had many like you, we would
never make any advance. This thought is worthy of your attention.

Reader: It seems to me that you simply want to put me off by talking round and round. Those whom

you consider to be well-wishers of India are not such in my estimation. Why, then, should I listen to your
discourse on such people? What has he whom you consider to be the father of the nation done for it? He
says that the English Governors will do justice, and that we should co-operate with them.

Editor: I must tell you with all gentleness that it must be a matter of shame for us that you should speak

about that great man, in terms of disrespect. Just look at his work. He has dedicated his life to the
service of India. We have learned what we know from him. It was the respected Dadabhai who taught
us that the English had sucked our life-blood. What does it matter that, to-day, his trust is still in the
English nation? Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the exuberance of youth, we are prepared
to go a step further? Are we, on that account, wiser than he? It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against
the very step from which we have risen higher. The removal of a step from a staircase brings down the
whole of it. When, out of infancy we grow into youth, we do not despise infancy, but, on the contrary,
we recall with affection the days of our childhood. If, after many years of study, a teacher were to teach
me something, and if I were to build a little more on the foundation laid by that teacher, I would not, on
that account, be considered wiser than the teacher. He would always command my respect. Such is the
case with the Grand Old Man of India. We must admit that he is the author of Nationalism.

Reader: You have spoken well. I can now understand that we must look upon Mr. Dadabhai with

respect. Without him and men like him, we would probably not have the spirit that fires us. How can the
same be said of Professor Gokhale? He has constituted himself a great friend of the English; he says that
we have to learn a great deal from them, that we have to learn their political wisdom, before we can talk
of Home Rule. I am tired of reading his speeches.

Editor: If you are tired, it only betrays your impatience. We believe that those who are discontented

with the slowness of their parents, and are angry because the parents would not run with their children,
are considered disrespectful to their parents. Professor Gokhale occupies the place of a parent. What
does it matter if he cannot run with us? A nation that is desirous of securing Home Rule cannot afford to
despise its ancestors. We shall become useless if we lack respect for our elders. Only men with mature
thoughts are capable of ruling themselves and not the hasty-tempered. Moreover, how many Indians
were there like Professor Gokhale, when he gave himself to Indian education? I verily believe that
whatever Professor Gokhale does he does with pure motives and with a view to serving India. His
devotion to the Motherland is so great, that he would give his life for it if necessary. Whatever he says is
said not to flatter anyone but because he believes it to be true. We are bound, therefore, to entertain the
highest regard for him.

Reader: Are we, then, to follow him in every respect?
Editor: I never said any such thing. If we conscientiously differed from him, the learned Professor

himself would advise us to follow the dictates of our conscience rather than him. Our chief purpose is not
to cry down his work, but to believe that he is infinitely greater than we, and to feel assured that
compared with his work for India, ours is infinitesimal. Several newspapers write disrespectfully of him.
It is our duty to protest against such writings. We should consider men like Professor Gokhale to be the
pillars of Home Rule. It is a bad habit to say that another man's thoughts are bad and ours only are good,
and that those holding different views from ours are the enemies of the country.

Reader: I now begin to understand somewhat your meaning. I shall have to think the matter over, but

what you say about Mr. Hume and Sir William Wedderburn is beyond comprehension.

Editor: The same rule holds good for the English as for the Indians. I can never subscribe to the

statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the English
people are somewhat more selfish than others is true, but that does not prove that every Englishman is
bad. We who seek justice will have to do justice to others. Sir William does not wish ill to India—that
should be enough for us. As we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly, India will be sooner free.
You will see, too, that, if we shun every Englishman as an enemy, Home Rule will be delayed. But if we
are just to them, we shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal.

Reader: All this seems to me at present to be simply nonsensical. English support and the obtaining of

Home Rule are two contradictory things. How can the English people tolerate Home Rule for us? But I

[Pg 13]

[Pg 14]

[Pg 15]

[Pg 16]

[Pg 17]

do not want you to decide this question for me just yet. To pass time over it is useless. When you have
shown how we can have Home Rule, perhaps I shall understand your views. You have prejudiced me
against you by discoursing on English help. I would, therefore, beseech you not to continue this subject.

Editor: I have no desire to do so. That you are prejudiced against me is not a matter for much anxiety.

It is well that I should say unpleasant things at the commencement, it is my duty patiently to try to remove
your prejudice.

Reader: I like that last statement. It emboldens me to say what I like. One thing still puzzles me. I do

not understand how the Congress laid the foundation of Home Rule.

Editor: Let us see. The Congress brought together Indians from different parts of India, and enthused

us with the idea of Nationality. The Government used to look upon it with disfavour. The Congress has
always insisted that the Nation should control revenue and expenditure. It has always desired self-
government after the Canadian model. Whether we can get it or not, whether we desire it or not, and
whether there is not something more desirable, are different questions. All I have to show is that the
Congress gave us a foretaste of Home Rule. To deprive it of the honour is not proper, and for us to do
so would not only be ungrateful, but retard the fulfilment of our object. To treat the Congress as an
institution inimical to our growth as a Nation would disable us from using that body.

CHAPTER II

The Partition of Bengal

Reader: Considering the matter as you put it, it seems proper to say that the foundation of Home Rule

was laid by the Congress. But you will admit that it cannot be considered a real awakening. When and
how did the awakening take place?

Editor: The seed is never seen. It works underneath the ground, is itself destroyed, and the tree which

rises above the ground is alone seen. Such is the case with the Congress. Yet, what you call the real
awakening took place after the Partition of Bengal. For this we have to be thankful to Lord Curzon. At
the time of the Partition, the people of Bengal reasoned with Lord Curzon, but, in the pride of power, he
disregarded all their prayers—he took it for granted that Indians could only prattle, that they could never
take any effective steps. He used insulting language, and, in the teeth of all opposition, partitioned
Bengal. That day may be considered to be the day of the partition of the British Empire. The shock that
the British power received through the Partition has never been equalled by any other act. This does not
mean that the other injustices done to India are less glaring than that done by the Partition. The salt-tax is
not a small injustice. We shall see many such things later on. But the people were ready to resist the
Partition. At that time, the feeling ran high. Many leading Bengalis were ready to lose their all. They knew
their power; hence the conflagration. It is now well nigh unquenchable; it is not necessary to quench it
either. Partition will go, Bengal will be re-united, but the rift in the English barque will remain: it must daily
widen. India awakened is not likely to fall asleep. Demand for abrogation of Partition is tantamount to
demand for Home Rule. Leaders in Bengal know this, British officials realise it. That is why Partition still
remains. As time passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations are not formed in a day; the formation
requires years.

Reader: What, in your opinion, are the results of Partition?
Editor: Hitherto we have considered that for redress of grievances, we must approach the Throne

and, if we get no redress, we must sit still, except that we may still petition. After the Partition, people
saw that petitions must be backed up by force, and that they must be capable of suffering. This new
spirit must be considered to be the chief result of Partition. That spirit was seen in the outspoken writings
in the press. That which the people said tremblingly and in secret began to be said and to be written
publicly. The Swadeshi movement was inaugurated. People, young and old, used to run away at the sight
of an English face; it now no longer awed them. They did not fear even a row, or being imprisoned.
Some of the best sons of India are at present in banishment. This is something different from mere
petitioning. Thus are the people moved. The spirit generated in Bengal has spread in the North to the
Punjab, and in the South to Cape Comorin.

Reader: Do you suggest any other striking result?
Editor: The Partition has not only made a rift in the English ship, but has made it in ours also. Great

events always produce great results. Our leaders are divided into two parties: the Moderates and the
Extremists. These may be considered as the slow party and the impatient party. Some call the
Moderates the timid party, and the Extremists the bold party. All interpret the two words according to
their pre-conceptions. This much is certain—that there has arisen an enmity between the two. The one
distrusts the other, and imputes motives. At the time of the Surat Congress, there was almost a fight. I

[Pg 18]

[Pg 19]

[Pg 20]

[Pg 21]

think that this division is not a good thing for the country, but I think also that such divisions will not last
long. It all depends upon the leaders how long they will last.

CHAPTER III

Discontent and Unrest

Reader: Then you consider Partition to be a cause of the awakening? Do you welcome the unrest

which has resulted from it?

Editor: When a man rises from sleep, he twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time before he

is entirely awakened. Similarly, although the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose has not yet
disappeared. We are still twisting our limbs and still restless, and just as the state between sleep and
awakening must be considered to be necessary, so may the present unrest in India be considered a
necessary and, therefore, a proper state. The knowledge that there is unrest will, it is highly probable,
enable us to outgrow it. Rising from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, but, according to our
ability, sooner or later, we are completely restored to our senses. So shall we be free from the present
unrest which no one likes.

Reader: What is the other form of unrest?
Editor: Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The latter is only now described as unrest. During the

Congress-period it was labelled discontent; Mr. Hume always said that the spread of discontent in India
was necessary. This discontent is a very useful thing. So long as a man is contented with his present lot,
so long is it difficult to persuade him to come out of it. Therefore it is that every reform must be preceded
by discontent. We throw away things we have only when we cease to like them. Such discontent has
been produced among us after reading the great works of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has led to
unrest, and the latter has brought about many deaths, many imprisonments, many banishments. Such a
state of things will still continue. It must be so. All these may be considered good signs, but they may also
lead to bad results.

CHAPTER IV

What is Swaraj?

Reader: I have now learnt what the Congress has done to make India one nation, how the Partition

has caused an awakening, and how discontent and unrest have spread through the land. I would now
like to know your views on Swaraj. I fear that our interpretation is not the same.

Editor: It is quite possible that we do not attach the same meaning to the term. You and I and all

Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To drive the
English out of India is a thought heard from many mouths, but it does not seem that many have properly
considered why it should be so. I must ask you a question. Do you think that it is necessary to drive
away the English, if we get all we want?

Reader: I should ask of them only one thing that is: "Please leave our country." If after they have

complied with this request, their withdrawal from India means that they are still in India, I should have no
objection. Then we would understand that, in our language, the word "gone" is equivalent to "remained."

Editor: Well then, let us suppose that the English have retired. What will you do then?
Reader: That question cannot be answered at this stage. The state after withdrawal will depend largely

upon the manner of it. If, as you assume, they retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution,
and shall carry on the government. If they simply retire for the asking, we should have an army, etc.
ready at hand. We should, therefore, have no difficulty in carrying on the government.

Editor: You may think so: I do not. But I will not discuss the matter just now. I have to answer your

question, and that I can do well by asking you several questions. Why do you want to drive away the
English?

Reader: Because India has become impoverished by their government. They take away our money

from year to year. The most important posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in a state of
slavery. They behave insolently towards us, and disregard our feelings.

Editor: If they do not take our money away, become gentle, and give us responsible posts, would you

[Pg 22]

[Pg 23]

[Pg 24]

still consider their presence to be harmful?

Reader: That question is useless. It is similar to the question whether there is any harm in associating

with a tiger, if he changes his nature. Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a tiger changes his
nature, Englishmen will change theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be possible is contrary to
human experience.

Editor: Supposing we get self-government similar to what the Canadians and the South Africans have,

will it be good enough?

Reader: That question also is useless. We may get it when we have the same powers; we shall then

hoist our own flag. As is Japan, so must India be. We must own our navy, our army, and we must have
our own splendour, and then will India's voice ring through the world.

Editor: You have well drawn the picture. In effect it means this: that we want English rule without the

Englishman. You want the tiger's nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English,
and when it becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This is not the Swaraj that I
want.

Reader: I have placed before you my idea of Swaraj as I think it should be. If the education we have

received be of any use, if the works of Spencer, Mill and others be of any importance and if the English
Parliament be the mother of Parliaments, I certainly think that we should copy the English people and this
to such an extent that, just as they do not allow others to obtain a footing in their country, so we should
not allow them or others to obtain it in ours. What they have done in their own country has not been
done in any other country. It is, therefore, proper for us to import their institutions. But now I want to
know your views.

Editor: There is need for patience. My views will develop of themselves in the course of this

discourse. It is as difficult for me to understand the true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I
shall, therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavouring to show that what you call Swaraj is
not truly Swaraj.

CHAPTER V

The Condition of England

Reader: Then from your statement, I deduce the Government of England is not desirable and not

worth copying by us.

Editor: Your deduction is justified. The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that

India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a
sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That Parliament has
not yet of its own accord done a single good thing, hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The
natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a
prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. To-day it is under
Mr. Asquith, to-morrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.

Reader: You have said this sarcastically. The term "sterile woman" is not applicable. The Parliament,

being elected by the people, must work under public pressure. This is its quality.

Editor: You are mistaken. Let us examine it a little more closely. The best men are supposed to be

elected by the people. The members serve without pay and, therefore, it must be assumed only for the
public weal. The electors are considered to be educated and, therefore, we should assume that they
would not generally make mistakes in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need the spur of
petitions or any other pressure. Its work should be so smooth that its effect would be more apparent day
by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and
selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive. What is done to-day may
be undone to-morrow. It is not possible to recall a single instance in which the finality can be predicted
for its work. When the greatest questions are debated its members have been seen to stretch themselves
and to dose. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the
"talking shop of the world." Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline
binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a
renegade. If the money and the time wasted by the Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the
English nation would be occupying to-day a much higher platform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy
of the nation. These views are, by no means, peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed
them. One of the members of the Parliament recently said that a true Christian could not become a
member of it. Another said that it was a baby. And, if it has remained a baby after an existence of seven
hundred years, when will it outgrow its babyhood?

[Pg 25]

[Pg 26]

[Pg 27]

[Pg 28]

Reader: You have set me thinking; you do not expect me to accept at once all you say. You give me

entirely novel views. I shall have to digest them. Will you now explain the epithet "prostitute"?

Editor: That you cannot accept my views at once is only right. If you will read the literature on this

subject, you will have some idea of it. The Parliament is without a real master. Under the Prime Minister,
its movement is not steady, but it is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime Minister is more
concerned about his power than about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon
securing the success of his party. His care is not always that the Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers
are known to have made the Parliament do things merely for party advantage. All this is worth thinking
over.

Reader: Then you are really attacking the very men whom we have hitherto considered to be patriotic

and honest?

Editor: Yes, that is true; I can have nothing against Prime Ministers, but what I have seen leads me to

think that they cannot be considered really patriotic. If they are to be considered honest because they do
not take what is generally known as bribery, let them be so considered, but they are open to subtler
influences. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe people with honours. I do not hesitate to say
that they have neither real honesty nor a living conscience.

Reader: As you express these views about the Parliament, I would like to hear you on the English

people, so that I may have your views of their Government.

Editor: To the English voters their newspaper is their Bible. They take cue from their newspapers,

which latter are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by different newspapers,
according to the party in whose interests they are edited. One newspaper would consider a great
Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, another would consider him dishonest. What must be the
condition of the people whose newspapers are of this type?

Reader: You shall describe it.
Editor: These people change their views frequently. It is said that they change them every seven years.

These views swing like the pendulum of a clock and are never steadfast. The people would follow a
powerful orator or a man who gives them parties, receptions, etc. As are the people, so is their
Parliament. They have certainly one quality very strongly developed. They will never allow their country
to be lost. If any person were to cast an evil eye on it, they would pluck out his eyes. But that does not
mean that the nation possesses every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If India copies England, it
is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.

Reader: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
Editor: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern

civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and
ruined day by day.

CHAPTER VI

Civilization

Reader: Now you will have to explain what you mean by civilization.
Editor: It is not a question of what I mean. Several English writers refuse to call that, civilization which

passes under that name. Many books have been written upon that subject. Societies have been formed
to cure the nation of the evils of civilization. A great English writer has written a work called "Civilization:
Its Cause and Cure." Therein he has called it a disease.

Reader: Why do we not know this generally?
Editor: The answer is very simple. We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are

intoxicated by modern civilization are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts and
arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A man, whilst he is
dreaming, believes in his dream; he is undeceived only when he is awakened from his sleep. A man
labouring under the bane of civilization is like a dreaming man. What we usually read are the work of
defenders of modern civilization, which undoubtedly claims among its votaries very brilliant and even
some very good men. Their writings hypnotise us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the vortex.

Reader: This seems to be very plausible. Now will you tell me something of what you have read and

thought of this civilization.

Editor: Let us first consider what state of things is described by the word "civilization." Its true test lies

in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life. We will take some examples. The

[Pg 29]

[Pg 30]

[Pg 31]

people of Europe to-day live in better-built houses than they did a hundred years ago. This is considered
an emblem of civilization, and this is also a matter to promote bodily happiness. Formerly, they wore
skins, and used as their weapons spears. Now, they wear long trousers, and for embellishing their bodies
they wear a variety of clothing, and, instead of spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or
more chambers. If people of a certain country, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much
clothing, boots, etc., adopt European clothing, they are supposed to have become civilised out of
savagery. Formerly, in Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by manual labour. Now, one man can
plough a vast tract by means of steam-engines, and can thus amass great wealth. This is called a sign of
civilization. Formerly, the fewest men wrote books, that were most valuable. Now, anybody writes and
prints anything he likes and poisons people's minds. Formerly, men travelled in waggons; now they fly
through the air, in trains at the rate of four hundred and more miles per day. This is considered the height
of civilization. It has been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able to travel in airships and reach
any part of the world in a few hours. Men will not need the use of their hands and feet. They will press a
button, and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press another button, and they will have
their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in waiting for them. They will have a variety of
delicately dished up food. Everything will be done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to fight
with one another, they measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away
thousands of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilization. Formerly, men
worked in the open air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands of workmen meet together and for
the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is worse than that of beasts. They
are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires.
Formerly, men were made slaves under physical compulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation of
money and of the luxuries that money can buy. There are now diseases of which people never dreamt
before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out their cures, and so hospitals have increased.
This is a test of civilization. Formerly, special messengers were required and much expense was incurred
in order to send letters; to-day, anyone can abuse his fellow by means of a letter for one penny. True, at
the same cost, one can send one's thanks also. Formerly, people had two or three meals consisting of
homemade bread and vegetables; now, they require something to eat every two hours, so that they have
hardly leisure for anything else. What more need I say? All this you can ascertain from several
authoritative books. These are all true tests of civilization. And, if any one speaks to the contrary, know
that he is ignorant. This civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. Its votaries calmly state
that their business is not to teach religion. Some even consider it to be a superstitious growth. Others put
on the cloak of religion, and prate about morality. But, after twenty years' experience, I have come to the
conclusion that immorality is often taught in the name of morality. Even a child can understand that in all I
have described above there can be no inducement to morality. Civilization seeks to increase bodily
comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so.

This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those who are in

it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by
intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households,
wander in the streets, or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in
England alone are labouring under trying circumstances in factories or similar institutions. This awful fact
is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement.

This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the

teaching of Mahomed this would be considered a Satanic civilization. Hinduism calls it the Black Age. I
cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the vitals of the English nation. It must be
shunned. Parliament are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will entertain
the same opinion, and cease to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd
nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious and
their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I, therefore, respect them.
Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English people are at
present afflicted by it.

CHAPTER VII

Why was India Lost?

Reader: You have said much about civilization—enough to make me ponder over it. I do not now

know what I should adopt and what I should avoid from the nations of Europe, but one question comes
to my lips immediately. If civilization is a disease, and if it has attacked England why has she been able to
take India, and why is she able to retain it?

Editor: Your question is not very difficult to answer, and we shall presently be able to examine the true

[Pg 32]

[Pg 33]

[Pg 34]

[Pg 35]

[Pg 36]

nature of Swaraj; for I am aware that I have still to answer that question. I will, however, take up your
previous question. The English have not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not in India
because of their strength, but because we keep them. Let us now see whether these propositions can be
sustained. They came to our country originally for purposes of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur.
Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who
assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted at the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods?
History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's
officers with open arms. We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang and a seller thereof sells
it to me, am I to blame him or myself? By blaming the seller shall I be able to avoid the habit? And, if a
particular retailer is driven away, will not another take his place? A true servant of India will have to go
to the root of the matter. If an excess of food has caused me indigestion, I will certainly not avoid it by
blaming water. He is a true physician who probes the cause of disease and, if you pose as a physician for
the disease of India, you will have to find out its true cause.

Reader: You are right. Now, I think you will not have to argue much with me to drive your

conclusions home. I am impatient to know your further views. We are now on a most interesting topic. I
shall, therefore, endeavour to follow your thought, and stop you when I am in doubt.

Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your enthusiasm, as we proceed further we shall have differences of

opinion. Nevertheless, I shall argue only when you will stop me. We have already seen that the English
merchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged them. When our princes fought
among themselves, they sought the assistance of Company Bahadur. That corporation was versed alike
in commerce and war. It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its object was to increase its
commerce, and to make money. It accepted our assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses.
To protect the latter it employed an army which was utilised by us also. Is it not then useless to blame the
English for what we did at that time? The Hindus and the Mahomedans were at daggers drawn. This,
too, gave the Company its opportunity; and thus we created the circumstances that gave the Company
its control over India. Hence it is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost.

Reader: Will you now tell me how they are able to retain India?
Editor: The causes that gave them India enable them to retain it. Some Englishmen state that they

took, and they hold, India by the sword. Both these statements are wrong. The sword is entirely useless
for holding India. We alone keep them. Napoleon is said to have described the English as a nation of
shop-keepers. It is a fitting description. They hold whatever dominions they have for the sake of their
commerce. Their army and their navy are intended to protect it. When the Transvaal offered no such
attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that it was not right for the English to hold it. When it
became a paying proposition, resistance led to war. Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that England
enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. It is related that some one asked the late President Kruger
whether there was gold in the moon. He replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there were, the
English would have annexed it. Many problems can be solved by remembering that money is their God.
Then it follows that we keep the English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce, they
please us by their subtle methods, and get what they want from us. To blame them for this is to
perpetuate their power. We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves. If you accept
the above statements, it is proved that the English entered India for the purposes of trade. They remain in
it for the same purpose, and we help them to do so. Their arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In
this connection, I remind you that it is the British flag which is waving in Japan, and not the Japanese. The
English have a treaty with Japan for the sake of their commerce, and you will see that, if they can manage
it, their commerce will greatly expand in that country. They wish to convert the whole world into a vast
market for their goods. That they cannot do so is true, but the blame will not be theirs. They will leave no
stone unturned to reach the goal.

CHAPTER VIII

The Condition of India

Reader: I now understand why the English hold India. I should like to know your views about the

condition of our country.

Editor: It is a sad condition. In thinking of it, my eyes water and my throat get parched. I have grave

doubts whether I shall be able sufficiently to explain what is in my heart. It is my deliberate opinion that
India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilization. It is groaning
under the monster's terrible weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day makes it more and more
difficult. Religion is dear to me, and my first complaint is that India is becoming irreligious. Here I am not
thinking of the Hindu and Mahomedan or the Zoroastrian religion, but of the religion which underlies all

[Pg 36]

[Pg 37]

[Pg 38]

[Pg 39]

[Pg 40]

religions. We are turning away from God.

Reader: How so?
Editor: There is a charge laid against us that we are a lazy people, and that the Europeans are

industrious and enterprising. We have accepted the charge and we, therefore, wish to change our
condition. Hinduism, Islamism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that we should
remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about godly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our
worldly ambition, and that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should be directed into
the latter channel.

Reader: You seem to be encouraging religious charlatanism. Many a cheat has by talking in a similar

strain led the people astray.

Editor: You are bringing an unlawful charge against religion. Humbug there undoubtedly is about all

religions. Where there is light, there is also shadow. I am prepared to maintain that humbugs in worldly
matters are far worse than the humbugs in religion. The humbug of civilization that I endeavour to show
to you is not to be found in religion.

Reader: How can you say that? In the name of religion Hindus and Mahomedans fought against one

another. For the same cause Christians fought Christians. Thousands of innocent men have been
murdered, thousands have been burned and tortured in its name. Surely, this is much worse than any
civilization.

Editor: I certainly submit that the above hardships are far more bearable than those of civilization.

Everybody understands that the cruelties you have named are not part of religion, although they have
been practised in its name: therefore there is no aftermath to these cruelties. They will always happen so
long as there are to be found ignorant and credulous people. But there is no end to the victims destroyed
in the fire of civilization. Its deadly effect is that people came under its scorching flames believing it to be
all good. They become utterly irreligious and, in reality, derive little advantage from the world. Civilization
is like a mouse gnawing, while it is soothing us. When its full effect is realised, we will see that religious
superstition is harmless compared to that of modern civilization. I am not pleading for a continuance of
religious superstitions. We will certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we can never do so by disregarding
religion. We can only do so by appreciating and conserving the latter.

Reader: Then you will contend that the Pax Britannica is a useless encumbrance?
Editor: You may see peace if you like; I see none.
Reader: You make light of the terror that Thugs, the Pindaris...